Bombay HC Grants Compensation In Mumbai Local Train Death Case, Urges Japanese-Style Civic Sense Among Passengers

The family members of a man who met with an accident while travelling from Kalyan station to Dombivli station in the local train in Mumbai had to wait for around 14 years to get the compensation from the Railways. The ill-fated man died on January 29, 2012. The family requested compensation, but the Railways denied it. On April 2, 2026, the Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling, granting compensation to the victim’s family and setting aside the Railway Tribunal Order.    

However, the Court urged people to inculcate civic sense and authorities to take necessary measures, like public announcements or police authorities at the platform, to ensure that passengers don’t cross the yellow strip on the platform, to avoid such accidents. It said, “At times, the yellow strip is too faded to be visible, so authorities should get it painted regularly, like zebra crossings are painted regularly. Also, authorities should consider the “RED” colour, which would indicate that passengers crossing the Laxman Rekha are entering a danger zone.”

The Court also highlighted the need to develop civic sense, stating, “Some education is required to make the people aware, and the passengers also should comply with the same in their own interest. As a responsible passenger, there is a need to inculcate civic sense amongst ourselves, like civic sense amongst Japanese people.”

Cash Background

The deceased man worked as a salesman. On January 29, 2012, he was travelling in the local train at around 6 p.m. when he met with an accident. He died in the incident. Subsequently, his dependents requested compensation from the Railways. They filed an application with the Railway Claims Tribunal in Mumbai. However, after seven years, on April 30, 2019, the Tribunal dismissed the compensation application, as per Live Law report.

The family was denied compensation on the grounds that the incident did not meet the legal requirement of an ‘untoward incident’. The family then approached the Court to appeal against the order.  

Arguments

The appellants argued that the man died in the tragic accident while following all rules during his travel. They also contended that the reports provided by different authorities were inconsistent, and they should be paid compensation.

The counsel of the respondent (Union of India representing the Central Railway) argued that the deceased was negligent while travelling and thus, compensation cannot be paid. They relied on the September 3, 2014, report by a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) and a report by the Railway Police Force (RPF), according to which the man (deceased) was standing near the door of a moving train.

Court Observation

Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the railway authorities had produced contradictory reports. The Court observed that the DRM and RPF reports claimed that the man fell from the train, whereas reports from the Station Manager and Government Railway Police (GRP) claimed that he was standing on the platform.

Notably, the Station Manager’s report dated January 29, 2012, claimed that the man was standing on the edge of the station and was struck by a moving train. The same was reiterated in the Government Railway Police Report (GRP Report).

The Court also took note of the Executive Magistrate's report, according to which the deceased died because of falling from a moving train.

It further noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. No eye-witness and contradictions made the reports doubtful.

Where no eye-witness made the Station manager’s report about the deceased’s negligence doubtful, the Court also rejected the argument based on DRM’s report that standing near the train door was negligence. “In Mumbai local, seldom are the seats vacant to be occupied when a passenger boards a train at a station other than the starting point, and even at the starting point, people have to jump to occupy a seat. Therefore, standing near the door cannot be treated as negligence while considering travelling in Mumbai locals, more so, on the Central Railway line,” the bench noted.

Court Judgment

The High Court held that the incident constituted an ‘untoward incident’, and dependents are entitled to the compensation. It granted Rs 4 lakh compensation along with 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of the incident, subject to a total cap of Rs 8 lakh. The Court ordered the amount to be paid to the applicant’s bank account within 12 weeks.